Fake Law summary

Charlie Gard was just two months old when he was diagnosed with a rare disease called mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, or MDDS. By the time he was six months old, Charlie was a permanent resident in Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital, unable to breathe without a ventilator. He was effectively blind and deaf, couldn’t move his arms and legs, and had severely abnormal brain function. His quality of life was so low, in fact, that his doctors wanted to withdraw ventilation from him.

But Charlie’s distraught parents didn’t agree. They wanted to take Charlie to the United States, where a doctor had offered him pioneering treatment. So, the court was asked to rule on whether Charlie could travel to America, or whether he should stay in England, and die.

If media reports are anything to go by, it’s never been easier to get money for nothing. Open any tabloid newspaper in the UK and you’ll likely find articles about its crazy lawsuit culture. Like the kid who was splashed by custard in the school cafeteria and won a £6,000 payout, or the cleaner who fell over their own mop and received £9,000 in compensation.

These cases may sound ridiculous, but when we examine English personal injury law, we begin to see how mishaps with custard and mops can justify such large sums.

It should go without saying that human rights are important, but what happens when human rights law goes too far? Consider the case of Mohammed Ibrahim, an Iraqi national living illegally in Britain. In 2003, he was convicted of driving offenses after being involved in a road traffic accident in which a twelve-year-old girl died.

When Ibrahim was released from prison, the UK government attempted to deport him back to Iraq but found that they couldn’t. Why? Because a judge ruled that deporting him would be a breach of his human rights.

It’s an uncomfortable reality of the English justice system that not all victims of crime receive justice.

Consider a scenario in which a rape victim’s case goes to court. The victim takes the stand and gives evidence; a grueling ordeal which makes the victim feel as if they’re the one on trial. Yet after all this, the attacker is found not guilty.

Is it ever justifiable that someone receives special treatment under the law? In 2008, the British public seemed to think so. The name of that someone was Sir Fred Goodwin, and in the months following the 2008 financial crash, he became public enemy number one.

Thanks to his lousy decision-making as the Chief Executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland, the bank had to be bailed out by the government at great taxpayer expense. After he was forced to resign, the media learned he was still entitled to a £700,000 annual pension from the bank – for life.

In June 2016 over 17 million British people voted to leave the European Union – the highest number of people who had ever voted for anything in British political history. After this astonishing victory, Britain’s eurosceptics looked forward to a swift exit from the EU.

But just months later, as the UK government prepared to start the withdrawal process, they found an unexpected obstacle in its path, in the form of three High Court judges. To the bitter chagrin of millions, these judges ruled that the government couldn’t proceed with Brexit as planned.